I went into “Man On The Moon” with little to no knowledge of Andy Kaufman. The bizarre entertainer of the 70s and 80s was known for staging elaborate pranks but he seems a little too avant-garde for my tastes. He was loved by many and hated by many more for his eccentric style. This film seems to do a good job in at least bringing you into Andy Kaufman’s strange world and it has a spectacular performance from Jim Carrey (“The Truman Show”, “The Mask”) as Kaufman.

“Man On The Moon” shows the surreal career of entertainer Andy Kaufman. We see him from his early days playing the clubs to hitting the big time with the sitcom “Taxi” to his death due to lung cancer.

Jim Carrey needs to get more credit for his fantastic portrayal of Kaufman here. Behind the scenes, Carrey was supposedly losing his mind and getting into physical fights with cast and crew members. Danny DeVito (“Twins”) is entertaining as Kaufman’s manager, George Shapiro. Many of the people that worked with Andy Kaufman actually appear in this movie as themselves so we see Christopher Lloyd (“Back To The Future”), wrestler Jerry Lawler and interviewer David Letterman all make appearances.

While I do not really get the appeal of Kaufman’s work, I applaud the work of Jim Carrey in capturing the madness of Kaufman. The odd career of Kaufman saw him wrestling women, getting into fights on interview shows, taking his audience for milk and cookies and trashing the set of “Taxi” as his alter ego, Tony Clifton. When he did actually die, many people assumed that it was another prank. “Man On The Moon” is not a brilliant movie but it does offer a fascinating look into the mind of a genuinely weird individual. It’s also nice to see Carrey in another movie that has him do more than just pull silly faces.

Denzel Washington (“Training Day”, “American Gangster”) stars in “Man On Fire”, a gritty revenge thriller from director Tony Scott (“The Fan”, “Top Gun”). This is a brutal film of the same calibre as “Dirty Harry” but many people do not actually know that this movie is in fact a remake of 1987 picture of the same name.

Set in Mexico City, “Man On Fire” follows John Creasy (Washington), an ex-C.I.A. man turned bodyguard. When he is hired to protect a rich family, he develops a bond with the daughter (Dakota Fanning “War of the Worlds”). The daughter is kidnapped and things go awry so Creasy sets his sights on the men responsible.

Denzel Washington is really good as Creasy. This is a tortured soul that finds friendship with a young girl and that is what brings him back from the edge. We feel his pain, much like we felt for Charles Bronson in the original “Death Wish”. Dakota Fanning is good as Lupita. Christopher Walken (“Wayne’s World 2”) and Mickey Rourke (“Double Team”) are both entertaining but feel underused. The film’s villains do not get a lot of screen time as Creasy spends much of the film trying to find out who exactly they are.

The performance from Washington is good, there are some clever twists and turns and the music is pretty darn great. However, my biggest problem with “Man On Fire” is the editing because it is just awful. So many of the sequences are edited like a music video and it becomes really annoying. Maybe the filmmakers were just trying to get around the censors as some of the scenes where Creasy interrogates the bad guys are quite harsh and disturbing. “Man On Fire” is rather lengthy in comparison to many other revenge flicks but I did not mind. If you are looking for a dark revenge thriller then “Man On Fire” will fit the bill.

“Man of the Year” is a film that sets everything up just right but not only does it fail to knock them down, the ball is never rolling. This is a film with a practically perfect premise for a comedy yet it decides to go absolutely nowhere.

In “Man of the Year”, Robin Williams (“Aladdin”, “Jack”) plays comedian Tom Dobbs, who runs for President and due to a computer error gets elected. What happens then? Absolutely nothing, the film gets him elected and does virtually nothing with it, how could anybody do this? He could’ve invaded countries, incited a brawl at the U.N. and leaked info about aliens but no, he just sits there.

Robin Williams really shows his talent near the beginning of this film with a good stand-up routine that seems as if he’s just warming-up and there are a few funny moments throughout but nothing exciting happens for the character to work. Christopher Walken (“Pulp Fiction”), Laura Linney (“Absolute Power”) and Jeff Goldblum (“The Fly”) are all in it so it’s not Williams is the only decent name here but the film just gives the people nothing to work with. I don’t understand how you can make a bad film with this kind-of cast.

“Man of the Year” is the ultimate disappointment because it’s got the right people and it’s got a story that has seemingly limitless possibilities. This film is like if “Coming To America” had never let Eddie Murphy leave his accommodation or if in “Star Wars”, the droids never used the escape pod; it’s a real waste. It’s definitely not Williams’ worst film as it does at least have a few good moments but ultimately you’re going to come out of this film with a confused look on your face; it’s a really nasty surprise.

“Superman: The Movie” in 1978 was a masterpiece and in many ways, the ultimate superhero movie. No “Superman” film since has managed to capture that and while “Man Of Steel” includes a few things that surpass a lot of the previous films, it ultimately doesn’t do it for me.

In “Man Of Steel”, Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) lives in hiding because of his amazing capabilities. When General Zod (Michael Shannon “Vanilla Sky”) and other beings from Clark’s home world appear on Earth and become hostile. Clark must become Superman and fight against them to save his adopted planet and the movie basically becomes an alien invasion film.

Henry Cavill may not visually capture Superman but when he actually dons the cape, he’s pretty good. However, it’s the Clark Kent persona I’m not so keen on as he’s not the loveable, goofy person we’re familiar with and is more like a normal guy. Amy Adams (“The Muppets”) is okay as Lois Lane but she and Superman/Clark Kent have surprisingly little screen-time. I dislike the villains. I like both Kevin Costner (“The Untouchables”) as Superman’s Earth dad Jonathan Kent and Russell Crowe (“Gladiator”) as Superman’s kryptonian father Jor-El. The other cast/characters were average.

“Man Of Steel” gives a scientific explanation of why Superman is more powerful on Earth than on Krypton and it gives us much more on his two fathers than before. Those are two major pluses but apart from those things, the film seems more obsessed with becoming other things. We see spaceships hovering over the cities and destruction over a city on a massive scale until we feel we’re watching “Independence Day” meets “Avengers Assemble” and after all that, there is very little that feels like a “Superman” film. It has by far the most action of any “Superman” picture to date and it goes to show that the ‘78 film, which had the least action (not counting the terrible “Superman and the Mole Men”), is by far the best. See the first film from ‘78 and leave the sequels, spin-offs and reboots.

“Alien Autopsy: (Fact Or Fiction?)” is a documentary looks at “The Alien Autopsy”, a video released in 1995 that claims to show the autopsy of an alien creature. It has since been conclusively proven to be nothing more than an elaborate hoax.

Jonathan Frakes (“Star Trek: First Contact”) hosts this documentary that explores the mystery surrounding the alleged U.F.O. crash near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. This includes investigating the legitimacy of a video of an alien autopsy by speaking to a wide variety of experts as well as those claiming to be witnesses of what happened in Roswell. The viewer is then encouraged to draw their own conclusions.

Jonathan Frakes is enjoyable as the host. Interviewees include forensics experts as well as a military cameraman, who filmed American nuclear tests. By far the most intriguing interview is the one with Stan Winston, famous for his special effects work on dozens of films including “Jurassic Park” and “Alien”. He claims to be impressed by the special effects work if the footage is faked, feeling that what is onscreen is as good if not better than anything he had done in Hollywood. The interviews with the alleged witnesses and Roswell locals are not very convincing. Ray Santilli, the man responsible for the video’s distribution is briefly questioned. He is now believed to have been responsible for faking the footage.

“Alien Autopsy: (Fact Or Fiction?)” may have served a purpose back when it was released but now that we know for certain that the footage was phony, there is little point in watching this. The footage itself never looked very convincing to me as the alien looks like a dummy and way too similar to the stereotypical alien that we have seen in countless films, tv shows and videogames. This is an interesting time capsule but nothing more than that.

The original “Halloween” changed the horror film industry forever. It gave birth to the slasher genre as we know it and with all the sequels, reboots and rip-offs, it remains an iconic film and a true masterpiece. It’s a shame that so many imitators never captured what made this movie from director John Carpenter (“The Fog”, “The Thing”) such a classic.

Michael Myers escapes from a mental asylum and heads to Haddonfield, Illinois to carry out a killing spree. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis “True Lies”, “A Fish Called Wanda”) is spending Halloween babysitting some kids but she will find herself facing the unstoppable serial killer as Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance “You Only Live Twice”) desperately tries to stop him.

Jamie Lee Curtis is good as Laurie Strode. She’s likeable, she’s believable; easily one of the best protagonists ever featured in a horror movie. Donald Pleasance is great as Dr. Loomis. This is a man on a crusade to stop an evil force. Michael Myers (or ‘The Shape’ as he is credited) is arguably the greatest slasher villain. Some of the sequels may have made him look ridiculous. However, in his first appearance, he looks cold, calculating and realistic. That’s why after all these years, he remains such a memorable antagonist.

Like “Psycho”, the original “Halloween” creates a genuinely unsettling experience that does not rely on gore or supernatural forces. Even if you hate slasher films (I certainly find a lot of them to be very underwhelming), you still have to see the first “Halloween” movie. The atmosphere, the brilliant score, the intense moments and the performance from Donald Pleasance all help to make this one of the best horror movies ever made. It’s odd that a film so good has inspired so many disappointing pictures but I guess the same is true of the original “Star Wars” trilogy.

Set in the same universe as “Clerks”, “Mallrats” is a disappointment as it seems far too content providing us with merely vulgar humour instead of witty vulgar humour. It has a few moments here and there but it lacks the realism of “Clerks”.

Brodie (Jason Lee “Vanilla Sky”) and T.S. (Jeremy London) are struggling with their love lives so they decide to hang out in the local shopping centre. They meet some very crazy characters and get into all sorts of trouble as they hope to find a way to win back their girlfriends (Shannen Doherty “Almost Dead”, Claire Forlani “Meet Joe Black”).

The Brodie and T.S. characters fail to have quite the same impact as the two leads in “Clerks” as they’re nowhere near as plausible and that’s a shame because they aren’t bad. Shannen Doherty is pretty good as Rene and Claire Forlani is decent as Brandi. Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith return as Jay and Silent Bob and they’re marginally amusing here. Ben Affleck (“Gone Girl”) and Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) play the villains and they’re disappointing. The cameo by legendary comic book creator Stan Lee is underwhelming. The topless fortune teller is not remotely funny and relies solely on her anatomy to get a laugh.

“Mallrats” has a few good gags here and there but the sex jokes and the toilet humour are just too crude and too lacking in intelligence to make the movie work. Those that want a movie with dirty jokes and a bit of nudity then look no further than “Mallrats” but I think most people won’t need to bother with this. The movie is not as realistic as “Clerks” and not as ridiculous as “Dogma” but if you’re a big fan of Kevin Smith’s movies then you’ll probably want to check this one out anyway.

Spike Lee (“Do The Right Thing”) directs this bio-pic about Malcolm X, who I consider to be one of the great villains of American history because while Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting hate with love, Malcom X was pouring fuel onto the flames. Although I’m pretty convinced Lee intended the film to have a more positive characterisation of Malcolm X than mine, I think the film shows what it shows and it’s up to the audience to make the decision.

Denzel Washington (“Training Day”, “American Gangster”) stars as Malcom X, who started life as a gangster by the name of ‘Detroit Red’ before converting to Islam while in prison. He then abandons the life of a petty criminal and becomes a preacher of hate against whites in America.

Denzel Washington is great as usual and it’s wonderful how we get to see him playing Malcolm at so many different stages of his life. The character is interesting because it seems like near the end of his life that he was reforming and could have become a force for good but his old friends from the Nation of Islam just wouldn’t let that happen. Spike Lee appears as Malcolm’s friend, Shorty, and he does a good job. Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen”) plays Malcom’s wife, Betty, and she also does a good job.

This is a long movie that runs over 3 hours but it does provide us with lots of insight into Malcom’s life. I profoundly disagree with any attempts to depict Malcolm X as a moral individual but I think this film merely provides the facts of his life so I was free to interpret the information. I’d compare the movie to the “Godfather” franchise as well as “Scarface” they all show the rise and fall of powerful individuals. The movie definitely is doing something right when it doesn’t feel like a chore to sit through a film this long.

“Magnum Force” is an average sequel to the enjoyable original “Dirty Harry”. “Magnum Force” tries a lot of the tricks we commonly see in sequels but it never amounts to much and it ends up being a weak outing overall.

In “Magnum Force”, someone is going around dressed as a traffic cop, pulling people over and then killing criminals that range from crime bosses to prostitution ring leaders to drug dealers. Assigned to the case is reckless police officer Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood “Bronco Billy”, “Million Dollar Baby”). With Callahan hot on the trail, it isn’t long before the killer is revealed.

I didn’t feel the love this time around when Eastwood donned the gun and holster as one of cinema’s most famous cops. They tried to expand on his personal life a little more in this one (a common trick in movie sequels) but it didn’t work well at all. Also, I felt the catchphrase in this one (‘A man’s got to know his limitations’) wasn’t among the franchise’s better quotes. The villains in this entry are not as great as the other villains in the series as they don’t really seem as evil or as sick as in the other films so that did not do the film any favours.

“Magnum Force” has some poor shootouts, some average car chases and a relatively sloppy script. The film certainly wasn’t terrible and it at least felt like a sequel to “Dirty Harry”, it just didn’t feel like a good one. It’s arguably the worst film in the franchise and this one seems like just a sequel without any new spin on it, which the later sequels had. The film isn’t a rehash but it definitely doesn’t attempt to do much that’s new. It’s one movie that I don’t feel is worth watching.

“Magicians” is a British comedy starring Robert Webb and David Mitchell both of which worked together on multiple programmes such as “That Mitchell and Webb Look” and I have to say both have shown good comedic skills both together and solo but their ‘big’ movie “Magicians” is awful.

In “Magicians”, two rival magicians, named Harry (Mitchell) and Karl (Webb), who used to be partners until a fatal incident on stage occurred, are going head-to-head in a magic competition. I love comedy and I love magic, how did this movie screw things up? I don’t know but it starts off badly and just seems to get worse and worse as it goes along.

As I’ve said, I like David Mitchell and Robert Webb’s other work. They have two very different personalities that go together well as Mitchell is the snobby and sophisticated one while Webb is the more casual and sort-of depressed-sounding one but here you can’t tell that. The other characters are appalling, the only one who seems decent was the one played by Peter Capaldi (“In The Loop”) as his overwhelming anger can always put a smile on my face; it’s a shame he only appears in a few scenes.

“Magicians” manages to miss just about every single note. I get that tv comedians are eager to break into the mainstream and across the world by starring in movies but they’re never going to get into the foreign markets when they offer horrendous pieces like this. You may remember Rowan Atkinson conquered the entire world’s media market with tv’s “Mr. Bean”, was he as successful with his ‘big’ movies? No. “Magicians” might have been funnier if Mitchell and Webb had been given a camera and told to do whatever with it rather than forcing them to be in any way related to this hideous script that has about as much humour in it as war propaganda.